The US Supreme Court’s Potential Move to Recalibrate Government Power

In an upcoming case, the US Supreme Court will be examining the power of federal agencies that play a crucial role in the functioning of the government. These agencies, spanning various sectors such as food safety and pollution control, have historically operated under the principle of “Chevron deference,” which grants them significant leeway in interpreting and enforcing regulations. However, two conservative justices on the Court, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, have expressed their disdain for this principle, setting the stage for a potential recalibration of government power. The upcoming cases involving herring fishermen and the National Marine Fisheries Service will serve as a litmus test for the Court’s stance on Chevron deference and its implications for the administrative state.

Table of Contents

The Background of the Supreme Court’s Potential Move

Case involving herring fishermen upset with the National Marine Fisheries Service

The potential move by the Supreme Court to recalibrate government power revolves around a case that involves herring fishermen who are upset with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NMFS is a federal agency responsible for safeguarding America’s ocean resources and habitat. In 2020, the NMFS issued a regulation requiring fishermen to bring an observer along with them on their boats and cover the observer’s per-diem fee themselves. The fishermen argue that this rule is an enormous imposition and adds insult to injury since space on their vessels is already a scarce and precious resource.

Power of federal agencies under scrutiny

The case brought by the herring fishermen has brought the power of federal agencies into scrutiny. Federal agencies play a crucial role in various aspects of governance, from ensuring workplace safety to responding to disasters and regulating industries. However, there has been growing concern about the extent of authority these agencies possess and the potential for abuse of that power.

Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council decision

The Supreme Court’s potential move is connected to the Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council decision in 1984. This landmark decision established the Chevron doctrine, which guides courts in reviewing agency interpretations of statutes. The doctrine consists of a two-step process: determining if the law is clear, and if it’s ambiguous, giving deference to the agency’s interpretation. This deference has been a subject of controversy, with some arguing that it grants too much power to agencies and undermines the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law.

The Chevron Doctrine and its Controversy

Explanation of the Chevron doctrine

The Chevron doctrine is a legal principle that emerged from the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council. It provides a framework for courts to review agency interpretations of statutes. The doctrine’s first step requires courts to determine if the statute is clear or ambiguous. If it’s clear, the court interprets it. If it’s ambiguous, the court defers to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. The Chevron doctrine has been criticized for its potential to grant excessive deference to government agencies, potentially undermining the separation of powers.

Early support and recent criticism of Chevron’s deference

In its early days, the Chevron doctrine enjoyed support from conservative justices, who saw agency deference as necessary to reflect the reality of government and serve its needs. However, in recent years, there has been growing criticism of Chevron’s deference. Some argue that it allows agencies to have unchecked power and effectively write laws themselves, undermining democratic accountability. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, in particular, have publicly expressed their opposition to Chevron’s deference.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas’s opposition to Chevron’s deference

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have been vocal opponents of Chevron’s deference. They believe that the doctrine grants too much power to unelected bureaucrats and undermines the traditional role of the judiciary in statutory interpretation. They argue that Chevron’s deference results in judicial abdication and allows agencies to make and enforce laws without sufficient oversight. Gorsuch and Thomas’s opposition to Chevron’s deference raises the possibility that the Supreme Court may be inclined to reconsider or modify the doctrine.

The Cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless v Department of Commerce

The lawsuits brought by herring fishermen against the National Marine Fisheries Service

The cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless v Department of Commerce involve lawsuits brought by herring fishermen against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The fishermen are challenging a regulation imposed by the NMFS that requires them to bring an observer on their boats and cover the observer’s fee themselves. They argue that this rule is burdensome and adds unnecessary costs to their operations.

Circuit courts’ rulings based on Chevron deference

In both the Loper Bright and Relentless cases, the circuit courts relied on Chevron deference in their rulings. They concluded that the law in question was ambiguous and that the NMFS’s interpretation of the law was reasonable. This reliance on Chevron deference allowed the circuit courts to uphold the NMFS’s regulation, despite the fishermen’s objections. The cases highlight the potential impact of the Chevron doctrine on the outcome of legal disputes involving federal agencies.

Expectations of three more justices supporting a move against Chevron

The plaintiffs in the Loper Bright and Relentless cases are hopeful that at least three more justices on the Supreme Court will support a move against Chevron deference. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas have already expressed their opposition to the doctrine, and there is a belief that other conservative justices may share their views. This potential alignment among the justices could lead to a reconsideration of the Chevron doctrine and a recalibration of government power.

Implications of Ditching Chevron

Outnumber of briefs urging the Supreme Court to abandon Chevron

There is a significant number of friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Supreme Court to abandon the Chevron doctrine. These briefs outnumber those in favor of preserving Chevron by a ratio of four to one. The abundance of briefs calling for the abandonment of Chevron reflects the growing dissatisfaction with the doctrine and the belief that it grants too much power to federal agencies.

Contested implications of overturning the precedent

The implications of overturning the Chevron precedent are contested. Critics of the doctrine argue that its elimination would restore a balance of power between the branches of government and enhance judicial review of agency actions. They argue that Chevron deference has allowed agencies to expand their authority unchecked. However, supporters of Chevron contend that overturning the doctrine could disrupt settled expectations and introduce uncertainty into the interpretation of federal laws.

Arguments from plaintiffs and the government regarding the impact of Chevron

The plaintiffs in the Loper Bright and Relentless cases argue that Chevron’s primary victims are the citizens. They contend that Chevron deference gives regulators the tie-breaking vote in close cases, effectively granting agencies unchecked power. On the other hand, the government defends Chevron by highlighting the importance of federal agencies in protecting workplace safety, responding to natural disasters, and regulating various industries. They argue that Chevron deference allows agencies to apply their expert knowledge in implementing regulations.

Case for Government Regulation and Expertise

Role of federal agencies in protecting workplace safety, responding to disasters, and regulating industries

Federal agencies play a crucial role in various aspects of governance, including protecting workplace safety, responding to natural disasters, and regulating industries. They have the expertise and resources to develop and enforce regulations that promote public welfare and ensure the smooth functioning of key sectors. Government regulation is essential for maintaining public health, safety, and economic stability.

Concerns about abandoning Chevron and its impact on regulatory conduct

Abandoning the Chevron doctrine raises concerns about its potential impact on regulatory conduct. Without Chevron deference, agencies might face greater scrutiny and challenges to their rulemaking. This could hinder their ability to carry out their core functions effectively. Critics argue that without deference, agencies may become more vulnerable to lawsuits challenging their regulatory actions, leading to delays and uncertainty in the implementation of important regulations.

The government’s defense of Chevron in relation to expert knowledge

The government defends Chevron deference by emphasizing the expertise of federal agencies. Agencies employ professionals with specialized knowledge in areas such as science, economics, and public health. This expertise is crucial in developing and implementing regulations that align with the best available scientific and technical information. Chevron deference allows agencies to utilize this expertise and make informed decisions without undue interference from the courts.

Conclusion and Potential Outcome

The Supreme Court’s potential move to recalibrate government power

The Supreme Court’s potential move to recalibrate government power through a reassessment of Chevron deference reflects growing concerns about the authority and influence of federal agencies. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s deliberations has the potential to reshape the balance of power between the branches of government and impact the future of government regulations in the United States.

The likelihood of the conservative court making changes to Chevron doctrine

Given the opposition to Chevron deference expressed by conservative justices such as Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, there is a reasonable likelihood that the conservative court may make changes to the Chevron doctrine. Some believe that the court may use the opportunity presented by the herring cases to revisit and potentially modify the doctrine. This prospect has garnered significant attention and anticipation from legal scholars and practitioners.

Implications of the court’s decision for future government regulations

The court’s decision on Chevron deference will have significant implications for future government regulations. If the court moves against Chevron deference, it could introduce greater judicial scrutiny to agency actions, potentially curtailing agencies’ regulatory authority. Conversely, if the court upholds and reinforces Chevron deference, it would preserve the status quo and maintain the deference traditionally granted to agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes. The court’s decision will shape the landscape of government regulation and the balance of power between the branches of government for years to come.

Additional Resources

Checks and Balance newsletter for updates on American democracy and government

For further updates on American democracy and government, readers can subscribe to the Checks and Balance newsletter. This newsletter provides comprehensive coverage and analysis of current topics and issues.

Interests in the outcome of the herring cases and Chevron doctrine

Various stakeholders, including herring fishermen, federal agencies, legal scholars, and practitioners, have a vested interest in the outcome of the herring cases and the potential recalibration of the Chevron doctrine. Their perspectives and opinions contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the implications and significance of these legal proceedings.